The Victorian government has announced an inquiry into women’s pain. Given women are disproportionately affected by pain, such a thorough investigation is long overdue.

The inquiry, the first of its kind in Australia and the first we’re aware of internationally, is expected to take a year. It aims to improve care and services for Victorian girls and women experiencing pain in the future.

The gender pain gap

Globally, more women report chronic pain than men do. A survey of over 1,750 Victorian women found 40% are living with chronic pain.

Approximately half of chronic pain conditions have a higher prevalence in women compared to men, including low back pain and osteoarthritis. And female-specific pain conditions, such as endometriosis, are much more common than male-specific pain conditions such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

These statistics are seen across the lifespan, with higher rates of chronic pain being reported in females as young as two years old. This discrepancy increases with age, with 28% of Australian women aged over 85 experiencing chronic pain compared to 18% of men.

It feels worse

Women also experience pain differently to men. There is some evidence to suggest that when diagnosed with the same condition, women are more likely to report higher pain scores than men.

Similarly, there is some evidence to suggest women are also more likely to report higher pain scores during experimental trials where the same painful pressure stimulus is applied to both women and men.

Pain is also more burdensome for women. Depression is twice as prevalent in women with chronic pain than men with chronic pain. Women are also more likely to report more health care use and be hospitalised due to their pain than men.

Medical misogyny

Women in pain are viewed and treated differently to men. Women are more likely to be told their pain is psychological and dismissed as not being real or “all in their head”.

Hollywood actor Selma Blair recently shared her experience of having her symptoms repeatedly dismissed by doctors and put down to “menstrual issues”, before being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2018.

It’s an experience familiar to many women in Australia, where medical misogyny still runs deep. Our research has repeatedly shown Australian women with pelvic pain are similarly dismissed, leading to lengthy diagnostic delays and serious impacts on their quality of life.

Misogyny exists in research too

Historically, misogyny has also run deep in medical research, including pain research. Women have been viewed as smaller bodied men with different reproductive functions. As a result, most pre-clinical pain research has used male rodents as the default research subject. Some researchers say the menstrual cycle in female rodents adds additional variability and therefore uncertainty to experiments. And while variability due to the menstrual cycle may be true, it may be no greater than male-specific sources of variability (such as within-cage aggression and dominance) that can also influence research findings.

The exclusion of female subjects in pre-clinical studies has hindered our understanding of sex differences in pain and of response to treatment. Only recently have we begun to understand various genetic, neurochemical, and neuroimmune factors contribute to sex differences in pain prevalence and sensitivity. And sex differences exist in pain processing itself. For instance, in the spinal cord, male and female rodents process potentially painful stimuli through entirely different immune cells.

These differences have relevance for how pain should be treated in women, yet many of the existing pharmacological treatments for pain, including opioids, are largely or solely based upon research completed on male rodents.

When women seek care, their pain is also treated differently. Studies show women receive less pain medication after surgery compared to men. In fact, one study found while men were prescribed opioids after joint surgery, women were more likely to be prescribed antidepressants. In another study, women were more likely to receive sedatives for pain relief following surgery, while men were more likely to receive pain medication.

So, women are disproportionately affected by pain in terms of how common it is and sensitivity, but also in how their pain is viewed, treated, and even researched. Women continue to be excluded, dismissed, and receive sub-optimal care, and the recently announced inquiry aims to improve this.

What will the inquiry involve?

Consumers, health-care professionals and health-care organisations will be invited to share their experiences of treatment services for women’s pain in Victoria as part of the year-long inquiry. These experiences will be used to describe the current service delivery system available to Victorian women with pain, and to plan more appropriate services to be delivered in the future.

Inquiry submissions are now open until March 12 2024. If you are a Victorian woman living with pain, or provide care to Victorian women with pain, we encourage you to submit.

The state has an excellent track record of improving women’s health in many areas, including heart, sexual, and reproductive health, but clearly, we have a way to go with women’s pain. We wait with bated breath to see the results of this much-needed investigation, and encourage other states and territories to take note of the findings.

Jane Chalmers, Senior Lecturer in Pain Sciences, University of South Australia and Amelia Mardon, PhD Candidate, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post A new government inquiry will examine women’s pain and treatment. How and why is it different? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

My heart goes out to the women’s family and communities, it’s horrendous and a situation that is all too common. Death, when it reaches the media, is the pointy end of crisis when we look at violence against women and children.

Many people in the public are shocked and horrified, they feel a sense of urgency that many of us in sector feel daily. My colleagues and I are often asked “How do we fix it?!”

Cultural change is a lengthy process that requires everyone to examine their attitudes and behaviours. In a time of mindless scrolling, we all need to engage a little more deeply on “those hilarious memes’’ we send without a second thought. A simple action everyone should take is observing our own responses to social media, media headlines and other popular culture engagement.

I went on a TikTok and Instagram deep dive over 7 days. We need to understand the voices that people are listening to outside of our social circles and belief systems. Social media provides a neat echo chamber where we don’t have to be challenged with views diametrically opposite to our own. It’s a space where we can always be right. I set a task to look at some top trending pieces of content and headlines I normally wouldn’t engage on.

I did this because hyper-sexualisation and aggression towards women and children is a perversive force in popular culture and an acceptable media narrative; we see these intersections when looking at community attitudes about violence against women and children. Underestimating content on TikTok and Instagram and its role in shaping the ideas of people, is a misstep in thinking. These platforms are a major source of information gathering and influencing.  

“The woman should feel smaller- he needs to feel like he could kill her.”

This was some advice that appeared on a podcast called “When Sex Happens”. Currently, on TikTok, they boast over 30,000 followers, 1.7 million likes and that clip has almost a million views. This channel is dedicated to celebrating very narrow forms of masculinity – that being attractive and commanding respect requires you to install fear in women. Women should be grateful that you are actively choosing not to hurt them. It’s alarming, but the stats and comments show this a view that resonates with people.

“What the F*CK are you wearing?” “Where the fuck do you think you are going dressed like that?”

This by no means is isolated to content from the United States. An Australian content creator Chris Keverian made mainstream headlines for berating his girlfriend over the length of her skirt. Now, anyone can see this is their bit; the video is staged, complete with slapping her at the end. This couple regularly produce videos being awful to each other – I suppose for entertainment? It’s not for me but it did amass 100k of likes and an array of comments from women saying, “they needed a man to humble them”. Often when we examine this content and indeed critique its damaging messaging – typically there is a boring response of “it’s just a joke, can’t you have a laugh.”

Why are you so uptight?

Well, I’m uptight because homicides of women are on the rise in Australia, and misogynistic views like these are rampant in our society. These views tacitly provide an environment where abuse and violence against women is normalised.

I recently spoke with my colleague Lauren French at BodySafety Australia, who outlined to me that the number one thing to have in a relationship for young people in Australia is ‘’loyalty”- women must be loyal, understanding and obey men. Young women know that loyalty and support is the expectation if they want the relationship to be successful. It would seem the ‘’tongue in cheek joke’’ has a darker more damaging meaning to the audience it is intended for.

These two channels on TikTok have a reach of over 27.7 million. They aren’t at risk of being deplatformed and they have an engaged audience. When we think of men’s rights activism, people immediately think of the poster boy Andrew Tate. Make no mistake, Tate is one of a cast of thousands. His views are distasteful and dangerous, but I would argue no more dangerous than these channels, or of mainstream media personalities like Jermey Clarkson, who famously published (in print and digital) he would like to see Meghan Markle “paraded naked through the streets with excrement thrown at her”. Her crime? Existing.

This week also saw global retailer H&M withdraw an ad featuring schoolgirls after complaints that the campaign encouraged the sexualisation of underage girls. The advert, launched in Australia, featured the slogan: “Make those heads turn in H&M’s Back to School fashion” above a photo of two girls wearing gray H&M pinafore dresses. Naturally, there have been the standard insincere apology, and regrets, reminiscent of the “apology” from Balenciaga in 2022 for having children feature in a BDSM shoot.

These kinds of campaigns occur because in a creative director’s mind, being talked about and considered edgy is of greater interested than really understanding and engaging with the horrors they are replicating for advertisements. The same goes for representations of child sexual abuse in movies and tv shows.

This weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald published a piece about the forthcoming movie May December headlined “She was 36, he was 13; their scandalous affair is now an unsettling film”.

What affair? She was 36, he was 13 – that’s a crime.

May December a movie based on the story of convicted child sex offender Mary Kay Letourneau and her victim Villi Fualauu. The movie is classed as a comedy/romance. This is extremely confusing to me, someone who talks to survivors of child sexual abuse regularly and understands the devastating consequences of it.

The director Todd Haynes turned this film into an intellectual exercise; how nice for him to be able to do that. He feels this film is about the ‘’ambiguity of desire” and mused he didn’t think that his lead character was paedophile – except of course Mary Kay Letourneau was and went to prison for this crime.

There is no ambiguity in a sexual relationship between a 36-year-old and a 13-year-old. Villi was a father to two children at 15. He suffered suicide ideation, and alcoholism at an early age. The film makers did not contact him to talk about his story.

He is alive and well, he has talked about his anger – that they have oversimplified a complex situation. Advocate Harrison James from Your Reference Ain’t Relevant expressed his frustration at this regressive narrative that damages the cause for victim survivors of child sexual abuse.

“This story is not the next Notebook- romanticizing paedophilia is a disgrace and irresponsible.’’ I agree wholeheartedly.

These headlines have generated thousands of clicks every day. This is the tip of the iceberg; but it clearly demonstrates that the current national approach and messaging to the broader community is not effective.

We should all question what we engage with online and think about what these “humorous or edgy” takes really support and normalize.

If you or someone you know is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, domestic, family or sexual violence call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, chat online via 1800RESPECT.org.au or text 0458 737 732.

If you are concerned about your behaviour or use of violence, you can contact the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491 or visit www.ntv.org.au.

The post Misogynistic views are rampant on social media. We should all think twice before engaging with them appeared first on Women's Agenda.

As founder of Women of Web3 Lauren Ingram puts it, the revelation is a “wake up call” that women are at risk of being left behind in the next iteration of the internet. 

Developer conference DevTernity posted a photo of a woman under the name ‘Anna Boyko’ to their event website. She was listed as a staff engineer at Coinbase and a core contributor at Ethereum. 

The problem is that she’s never spoken at any events and her supposed employer, Coinbase, had never heard of her. She was a fake profile listed on a prominent conference website. 

The detective behind this discovery is a Netherlands-based software engineer, Gergely Orosz, who noticed the discrepancies and reached out to verify with other speakers from the conference, all of whom had never heard of an ‘Anna Boyko’. 

In a detailed thread on platform X (formerly Twitter), Gergely Orosz lays out the series of events leading to the discovery of the fake profile.

“To spell it out why this conference generated fake women speakers. Because the organiser wants big names and it probably seemed like an easy way to address their diversity concerns,” writes Orosz. 

Adding to the disgrace, Orosz points out that Boyko was not the only fake profile that the conference group had created. Of the 3 women speakers initially listed at the event, two of the women were fake profiles. The second woman, Alina Prokhoda, who is listed as a Senior Engineer at WhatsApp, also doesn’t exist. 

Another woman listed on DevTernity’s website (before it was taken down) was ‘Anna Boyle’s’ colleague Natalie Stadler– a fake person. 

Orosz also shares images of the website’s edit history as evidence of when the organisers created the fake Anna and subsequently removed her– 10 months after ticket sales had been ongoing. 

And at conferences from 2021 to 2023, DevTernity listed the fake profile Julia Kirsina using photos from a real person (a model who is not a software engineer). 

Adding to the discourse, Field CTO at honeycomb.io Liz Fong-Jones has called the story behind ‘Julia Kirsina’s’ fake profile “much worse” than it first appears. 

Fong-Jones says that the founder of DevTernity, Eduards Sizovs has been operating social media accounts pretending to belong to Julia Kirsina, a full-time conference organiser, “tech influencer” and “software craftswoman”. 

“The content that ‘she’ posts is the same as Eduards, except for the addition of winky/kissy emoji,” writes Fong-Jones. 

“The photographs on Instagram are racy/soft-core, use laptops/screens with code/tech tshirts as props, and mix sex appeal and business in a way that is reminiscent of catfishing or booth babery.”

Fong-Jones goes on to say that “if a man is dishonest to the point of trying to infiltrate women in tech communities” then he should be “ejected” from the industry entirely. 

“This kind of shit makes every single woman have to prove herself 100x harder to prove we’re not a ‘fake’ and that we got to where we are through hard work, not through sexy pics/flirting.”

The fallout

As these disturbing revelations continue to come to light, several people signed up to speak at the DevTernity conference have pulled out, and yet organisers of the event have continued to deny the problem of creating fake female speakers. 

Some speakers have even had trouble getting event organisers to remove their profile from the website after asking to be taken off the list. 

Support for Sizovs’ DevTernity has been rapidly collapsing as 404 Media reports that the last woman speaker, Kristine Howard of Amazon Web Services (a real person) scheduled for the conference has pulled out. 

Rather than take accountability for wrongdoing as the evidence mounts, Sizovs has issued statements blaming ‘cancel culture’ for ruining ‘all the good work’ he’s been doing. 

“I said it was a mistake, a bug that turned out to be a feature. I even fixed that on my website! We’re cool? Nooooo, we want blood! Let’s cancel this SINNER!,” writes Sizovs in his response to the situation. 

The post This tech conference listed women who don’t exist on their speaker lineup. How many others are doing the same? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

It rightfully sparked outrage, criticism and exhaustion from those of us who advocate with and for victim-survivors of violence.  

The principal wrote about his horror and shock at the actions of the “fine student and role model”, a variation on a headline we see time and time again when a woman dies.

Narratives of the ‘good man’ are laced with suspicion. The part that isn’t often said out loud: perhaps somehow the woman’s actions caused her death, rather than the choices of the man who killed her.

The voices and experiences of the women at the heart of these stories are often lost, the result of a society where the voices and actions of men continue to be prioritised.

The letter was a striking reminder of the lack of understanding that many hold about violence against women.

On average, every week a woman is killed by her current or former partner in Australia. They may have been together for decades; they may have been together for a few weeks.

He might be the father of her children. He might be a well-respected community figure, a ‘good bloke.’ Almost certainly, he is someone’s son, brother, friend, co-worker.

And this is where there is a kernel of truth in the letter from John Collier.

None of these killers are monsters. They are men.

We never want to imagine someone we care for – or even worse, look up to – as being capable of killing someone. What would that say about us?

But men who use violence against women are not supernatural figures who live in the shadows. And that’s what we find so hard to face up to.

Violence against women is happening in every suburb and town in the country – yet less than 50% of Australians believe it’s a problem where they live.

We describe violence against women as ‘inexplicable’ rather than the reality: this is happening to people – predominantly women – across the country in homes every single day.

It’s easy to attribute men’s violence against women to stress or a “deeply out of character” moment – instead of facing up to the culture of misogyny and entitlement that drives violence against women. 

Violence isn’t created in a vacuum. It’s created in environments where boys will be boys. Where boys and men are taught to feel entitled to relationships, to sex, to making the decisions, to getting what they want.  

A society where men continue to be lifted up into leadership positions regardless of the harmful attitudes they hold towards women. Where women continue to shoulder the majority of the parenting, housework and care work.

Fatal violence is almost always preceded by other forms of violence. Sometimes it may be emotional abuse, often in the form of control. It could be physical, sexual, or financial.

Instead of wringing our hands and saying: how is it possible that this man did this? We should be asking: why are men doing this? How can we prevent it from happening in the future?

Collier’s letter noted that the alleged murder was “impossible to have prevented” – but nothing could be further from the truth.

Violence against women is not inevitable; it’s preventable. And to change the headlines, we need to write a different story.

If you are concerned about your behaviour, or about someone using violence, call Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491.  

If you or someone you know is in need of help due to sexual assault or family and domestic violence contact 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732

The post ‘Not a monster’: So who is killing Australian women every week? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Sad Bad Girl novels combine the best – or should I say the worst? – elements of these narratives. Titles like My Year of Rest and Relaxation by Ottessa Moshfegh, Luster by Raven Leilani and Animal by Lisa Taddeo all feature disaffected or disturbed young women acting out, or wilfully sabotaging their lives.

Despite the impressive writing of authors such as Leilani, Moshfegh and Taddeo, too many of these stories fail to keep up with their own ideas. Trauma is sensationalised, damaged characters are diminished and complicated, and challenging situations are compressed into marketable entertainment. Sometimes this is alarming, but mostly it’s just disappointing. It also means the Sad Bad Girl was a trope from the outset.

Typically in her late 20s or early 30s, the Sad Bad Girl is insecure and adrift, seething with self doubt and drowning in denial. Her family is dysfunctional if not abusive, she drinks too much, makes terrible relationship choices, resents her boring job, and dreams of becoming a successful creative. Her friends, if she has any, act as sounding boards or barometers for her emotional messes. She is self-obsessed, self-serving and self-destructive, and I’m afraid I’ve had enough of her.

It’s not that I’ve had enough of stories about women. Far from it. As a writer, I have spent most of my career focused on female narratives. I have challenged the misrepresentation of women in the music industry, explored essentialist ideas about the female psyche and confronted the diminished antiheroine of thriller fiction.

But the one thread connecting my work is a call for more complex stories about psychologically nuanced women.

So as a reader, I’m cynical. I’m frustrated by the proliferation of stories about two-dimensional women behaving badly when there is such rich potential for transgressive Sad Bad Girls.

Green Dot’s lost millennial woman

Unfortunately, the much-buzzed-about Australian debut novel, Green Dot, with its tale of a young, white, messed-up woman searching for meaning in all the wrong places, fails to break new ground.

If you haven’t already heard about Green Dot, you will. The buzz is growing and the book is set to be a huge summertime success. Sharply observed, funny and tender, set between Sydney and an unnamed British city, it’s a likeable enough narrative. Fans of Dolly Alderton will probably love it. But take a closer look at this frothy, sassy story and you might begin to question the appeal.

Put simply, Green Dot is the tale of an office love affair between 24-year-old Hera and Arthur, her older, married colleague. The unique pain and pull of first love is beautifully depicted at times, and Gray is a competent writer. “I am aware that a past version of myself, one who is not so embroiled, would likely see this all with much greater clarity,” thinks Hera, when she can’t get hold of Arthur. She reflects that the old Hera “would likely stick up for herself more, would find Arthur’s entitlement galling, or she would never wait around in the first place.”

But for much of the novel, the tone is trite and the characterisation, although astute, is patchy. While this starts out as a fun page-turner, by the midway mark the singular theme of Hera’s yearning for Arthur begins to weigh.

Conforming to the trope of lost millennial woman, Hera brims with fragile confidence and pernicious self-doubt. Disaffected, cynical, irreverent to the point of positively irritating, she inhabits her story with wit and humour. But her relentlessly interior perspective lacks self-reflection.

There is nothing much in the story to alleviate this. Hera’s friends, Soph and Sara, exist mainly to let the reader know Hera has friends with opinions about her behaviour. Other characters function mainly to witness Hera’s affair or remind her that she misses Arthur.

As for Arthur, a charmingly uncool intellectual from England, he is essentially a prize who offers Hera self-validation in the form of her own emotions. “What I really wanted was feelings to protect,” she confesses. “And here they were.”

Self-abasing ‘almost for the sake of it’

Long after her affair has run its course, Hera realises “my dedication to this relationship was in fact a dedication to my belief in myself”. Yet this declaration, which appears at the start of the story, doesn’t afford her any insight beyond the fact Arthur once represented comfort, and the promise of a life “which didn’t require me to make decisions anymore”.

Hera makes Arthur sound like a pet rock she has tried to use to orient herself. Gray makes him sound like a cliché. An English man who manages to combine “a high-powered job with the nervous shyness of someone who was bullied in high school”, he resembles an early-career Hugh Grant, bumbling around in cargo pants and “chemist-bought sunglasses”.

But for all his awkward British sensitivity, he avoids the subject of his marriage like the plague, which renders him spineless.

The plot is littered with oversights that raise questions about the editing process. For example, when Hera moves to a strangely unidentified city in the UK, seemingly on a kind of vengeful whim, the entire episode is treated with remarkable gloss.

In a country where work and accommodation are notoriously hard to acquire, Hera finds both with miraculous speed, and once there, does nothing except sleep with lots of terrible people and moon over Arthur. This, together with Gray’s painfully inaccurate stereotyping of British culture, including “trash” British coffee, pretentious British art students and small-minded British pub-goers, continues for 50 pages, while Hera’s emotional arc remains stagnant.

When COVID hits, lockdown and isolation ensue, and again, Hera traverses these with ease. Weirdly, she makes no friends in the UK and her flatmate, Poppy, barely a whisper on the page, inexplicably comes and goes sporadically despite government restrictions. Despite being entirely alone overseas during the outbreak of a deadly virus, Hera continues to be preoccupied with nothing more than missing Arthur.

Another example occurs when Hera and Arthur find themselves in Hera’s estranged mother’s neighbourhood. By coincidence that feels contrived, Hera spies her mother outside a restaurant. But Gray skims past this detail, opening and shutting down a valuable plot opportunity within two paragraphs, making you wonder why it was included in the first place.

Gray’s writing is intelligent and effervescent, and this is an entertaining debut. But at almost 400 pages, given the one-trick plot and skinny characterisation, it’s far too long: which seems to be another editing issue.

Hera is amusing, but far too preoccupied with herself to be in touch with her vulnerability. She asks questions of herself that she doesn’t bother to answer. She is self-aware but unable to think analytically. And while her flaws are central to her character, like too many Sad Bad Girls, she is self-consciously self-abasing almost for the sake of it.

Insightful exploration of a traumatised woman

By contrast, Lucy Treloar’s new novel, Days of Innocence and Wonder, explores the search for meaning and connection with depth and sensitivity, from the perspective of trauma.

This is the author’s third book and her first foray into contemporary fiction. It refreshingly defies familiar genre categories, being neither a straightforward thriller nor crime. Needless to say, this is not the story of a Sad Bad Girl, but an insightful and sensitive exploration of a traumatised woman.

Protagonist Till is a 23-year-old woman on the run from a devastating childhood experience that continues to bleed into the present. Angry, haunted and scared, she’s not so much flawed as scarred. Disrupting ideas about safety and refuge, unsettling the boundaries of space and time, this is a story about how the past shapes the present. Ultimately, Till must learn what this means for her and what she can do about it – or not.

Written in response to the ongoing problem of male violence and misogygny that propelled the 2021 women’s March4Justice movement across Australia, the novel poses questions about reckoning and the loss of innocence. Occasionally led by an unidentified first-person perspective that breaks through the narrative with leading questions, it also raises the issue of shattered identity. The final page responds to this in heartbreaking fashion.

At the start of the novel, Till is newly terrified and flees her parents’ home in Melbourne, driving with no destination in mind, finally stopping at the fictional ghost town of Wirowie in South Australia. Here, she sets up camp in the old, crumbling railway station and, despite her wounded, defensive, suspicious disposition, slowly begins to find a sense of community among the scattered inhabitants.

But the deserted township, with its dusty streets and abandoned buildings, harbours dangers of its own, forcing her to choose between running again, or claiming her precarious ground and facing down the threat.

Elegantly written, the novel possesses a dreamlike quality reminiscent of Kate Hamer’s mystery novels,though at times the evocative atmosphere can feel disorientating. Perhaps this is a conscious decision, designed to pitch the reader into Till’s fractured psyche – where hazy memories blur the line between dreams and fleeting impressions of the past.

Certainly, in its depiction of psychological trauma, and the ways children adapt in order to survive terrifying experiences, the narrative is astute and considered.

Addresses structural misogyny

There are inconsistencies. For example, I found it wholly unfeasible that the guarded and mistrustful Till would invite shopkeeper Ken into her home within minutes of meeting him. And without providing spoilers, the way Till’s past continues to track her is hard to believe and not adequately explored or explained.

While this preserves a mysterious quality, it leaves too many important questions unanswered, and too many loose threads hanging. Just a few more well-placed beats would have made all the difference.

Overall though, this is a moving novel that addresses the structural misogyny in Australian society, as well as the ways it intersects with the persistent issue of racism. It constitutes a quietly powerful response to these things in the form of a psychological suspense novel that refuses the heightened drama of conventional thriller territory.

Though set in a dilapidated rural area around a tiny community impacted by tragedy, the story avoids the trappings of outback crime and heroic metropolitan detectives.

Instead, like Emily Maguire’s An Isolated Incident (which was shortlisted for both the Miles Franklin and the Stella Prize) Treloar’s novel foregrounds the female experience of violence and trauma considerately and thoughtfully. It confronts the legacy of male brutality without sidestepping the horrors or overdramatising them.

A slow-burning tale about the power of female self-agency, Days of Innocence and Wonder carries a quiet sense of hope and the promise of a protagonist who is finally able to grow up. And that, in itself, sets Till apart from the Sad Bad Girls.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post I’ve had enough of Sad Bad Girl novels and sensationalised trauma – but I’m hungry for complex stories about women appeared first on Women's Agenda.

On Tuesday night, Laurence Fox — a ”darling of rightwing culture warriors” went on the Dan Wootton Tonight show to criticise comments made a day earlier by political journalist Ava Evans, who responded to a call made by a Conservative MP for a dedicated minister for men as “feed[ing] into the culture war a little bit.”

Evans was speaking on an episode of BBC’s Politics Live when her co-guest comedian and commentator Geoff Norcott mentioned the concerning rates of suicide for men under fifty – noting how it remains the biggest cause of death in the UK for men under that age. 

“I think that it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument,” Evans said. 

“[Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women.”

Evans took to X to explain that the comments had been “a little rash” and that she was “actually very interested in a brief for a minister on young men’s mental health”.

On Tuesday night, a segment on Dan Wootton’s show featured Laurence Fox responding to Evan’s comments by adjudicating her sexual currency, saying: “Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel.”

The banner on the screen during their discussion displayed the text: “Hard-left commentator slammed for shrugging off male suicide crisis.” 

Describing Evans as a “little woman,” Fox went on to say, “We need powerful, strong amazing women who make great points for themselves. We don’t need these sort of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing. Who’d want to shag that?”

Wootton is seen smiling, before adding his own response: “And she’s a very beautiful woman, Laurence, very beautiful woman.”

Evans, who is the political correspondent for online news platform PoliticsJOE, posted the clip of the segment on X captioned: “Laurence Fox just did a whole speech on GB News on why men apparently won’t shag me ?” 

“I feel physically sick.”

On Wednesday, GB News issued a statement, saying it has “suspended Dan Wootton following comments made on his programme by Laurence Fox last night. This follows our decision earlier today to formally suspend Mr Fox. We are conducting a full investigation.”

Speaking to the BBC Newscast podcast, Evans said she had received an apology from the news channel.

“It was an email from the editor – a very gracious email – basically telling me that what Fox said was not representative of the rest of the GB News outfit,” she said. 

“That’s actually probably the best apology I could have gotten. Honestly, not to cast doubt on our media landscape, but I didn’t actually think anything was going to happen.

“I don’t want to say I’m pleased by it. I just think that’s probably the best outcome I could have hoped for.”

Before she received that official apology from GB News, she wrote on X: 

“Really, really grateful to every person who reached out to me. From MPs, to journalists, to friends and people on here. I’m overwhelmed by how kind people have been. I’m also immensely grateful to the incredibly courageous people who spoke out despite working on the station.” 

Evans also said that in the 24 hours prior, she had received “really nasty” threats. 

Speaking to the Evening Standard on Wednesday, Evans said that “as a political journalist…I’ve much rather be judged or asked about my work than have people talking about my body.” 

“I’m shocked that [the comments] went out, she continued. “This is the sort of talk that you worry that men have about you when you’re not in the room. There’s always sort of a worry in the back of your mind which is — are people actually interested in what I’m saying or what I’m doing or are they just looking at me physically? And I think that that clip proves that there are some men who are.” 

Following a huge backlash on social media, Wootton, 40, issued an apology on X, explaining his “regret” over the exchange he had with Fox on his show. 

“Having looked at the footage, I can see how inappropriate my reaction to his totally unacceptable remarks appears to be and want to be clear that I was in no way amused by the comments,” he wrote. 

“I reacted as I did out of shock and surprise in an off guard moment while working out how to respond as he continued to speak by searching for tweets @AvaSantina had sent earlier in the day while having them read out in my ear at the same time.”

“However, I should have intervened immediately to challenge offensive and misogynistic remarks. I apologise unreservedly for what was a very unfortunate lapse in judgement on my part under the intense pressure of a bizarre exchange.”

Wootton concluded his apology by saying he “should have done better” and that he will continue to “seek to tackle the issue and not the person.” 

Lucy Frazer, UK’s Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said Fox’s comments were “inappropriate and unacceptable.”

Television presenter and journalist Carole Malone, described Fox’s comments as “outrageous” — adding that Fox has done himself, “more harm than he could ever do [to Evans].”

“I don’t quite know why that was allowed to go on.” 

Shadow Culture Secretary, Thangam Debbonaire, posed the question on X: “Should we [women] have to tell a broadcaster that on-air woman-hate is not OK?”

“Last night’s woman-hating on air has hit a new low. Might want to ask why a national broadcaster would want to keep this man on air. Women are mighty and we will never let voices like this silence us.”

Shadow attorney-general, Emily Thornberry said the on-air incident of “smirking, sniggering” misogyny “needs to be called out”, adding that “British television should never subject women to this sort of abuse”.

This is not the first time Wootton has been in hot waters for his inappropriate behaviour — earlier this month, he was accused of using a pseudonym to solicit explicit images from former Sun colleagues over several years — allegations which GB News has repeatedly refused to investigate. 

Wootton is currently being investigated by three separate media groups including MailOnline and News UK over a range of issues.

UK’s media regulator, Ofcom said it will continue its investigation into a large number of complaints about Wootton and Fox’s comments. 

The post ‘Who’d want to shag that?’: Male presenters suspended over misogynistic comments appeared first on Women's Agenda.

On Tuesday, the Tate brothers filed a lawsuit and are seeking at least $US5 million ($7.3 million) from the woman, her parents, another woman who lived at the Tates’ Bucharest estate and a male friend of the woman. 

The Tates are accusing the five people of conspiring to falsely accuse them of human trafficking and rape. The pair say this cost them their freedom and millions of dollars in income from their social media, podcasting and business ventures.

In December, Romanian officials arrested the Tates and indicted them, alleging the brothers forced seven victims into pornography and subjected them to physical violence. The women were allegedly controlled by “intimidation and constant surveillance”.

Investigators said the Tates and two Romanian women formed a criminal group in 2021 “in order to commit the crime of human trafficking” in Romania, the United States and Britain.

The Tate brothers remain under house arrest in Romania.

Attorneys for the Tate brothers, Thomas Maniotis and Joseph D McBride called the woman a “professional con artist” and say she pursued a sexual relationship with Tristan Tate in order to move to Romania, then tried to defraud the brothers. When that failed, the attorneys claim she conspired with the others to make false statements to Romanian and US embassy authorities that led to the arrests. 

“At no point did the Tate brothers engage in human trafficking,” the lawsuit said.

Neither the woman or her parents are being named, as she is the alleged victim of sexual assault. 

The lawsuit says the woman and her parents are residents of Palm Beach County, which is where it was filed. 

Several women in Britain are pursuing civil claims against Andrew Tate, alleging they were victims of sexual violence. 

Andrew Tate has been banned from social media platforms– TikTok, Youtube and Facebook– for alleged hate speech and misogynistic rhetoric, including comments that women should bear responsibility for being sexually assaulted. He remains popular on Twitter, with many of his 7 million followers being young men and children.

If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.

The post Andrew Tate sues Florida woman, claiming false accusations led to arrest for human trafficking appeared first on Women's Agenda.

On June 26 2013, as she fronted the press gallery in Canberra after her removal as leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard was determined not to cry. In her prime ministerial resignation speech, she asked not for pity, but rather for a meaningful national conversation about gender and politics, specifically the politics of her demise.

It doesn’t explain everything; it doesn’t explain nothing. It explains some things. And it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey.

Ten years after the fact, that conversation is ongoing. At times, it has been a progressive and sophisticated one. The events of recent weeks, including the puerile debate about Katy Gallagher’s prior knowledge of Brittany Higgins’ sexual assault allegations, and the allegations against Senator David Van, remind us there is still a long way to go.

However, it is worth pausing to reflect on what has happened to Gillard’s reputation over the decade. Why has it thrived? Is it all about gender? And if we have forgotten key aspects of the Gillard years, what does that partial amnesia say about us?

From ‘Juliar’ to feminist icon

For much of her premiership, Gillard was singularly unpopular among Australian voters. Her efforts to put a price on carbon (damned by critics as a broken promise not to introduce a carbon tax) proved electorally damaging, as did her failure to end the deadlock over asylum-seeker policy. Controversies surrounding Labor MP Craig Thompson and Speaker Peter Slipper (selected for the role by Gillard) further undermined her standing.

There was much sexism at play. Her critics incessantly argued this was a woman not to be trusted. Critics of carbon pricing infamously dubbed her “Juliar” on their angry placards. Her body was objectified in the public domain, and the shock jocks of commercial radio questioned the sexuality of her then partner.

One commentator, the irascible Alan Jones, even suggested the prime minister ought to be “put in a chaff bag” and drowned at sea. The shocking thing is not that these things were said, but rather that they were accepted as legitimate contributions to public debate by the community at large.

Stories about Gillard’s alleged corruption as a lawyer in Perth in the early 1990s also proved a distraction from the government’s agenda. Not until 2014 – in the witness box of a royal commission, no less – was Gillard finally able to clear her name.

The misogyny speech

The passage of time can make things seem as if they always were as they are now. But Gillard’s renowned misogyny speech was not an instant sensation in Australia. The context – a censure motion on the disgraced speaker Peter Slipper – was unpropitious, and when Gillard made her speech, the conservative press called her a hypocrite who now played the “gender card” for political expediency.

The speech’s global impact was immediate, but only after Gillard’s removal from power did it capture the hearts and minds of some Australians. New developments – the sexist attacks on US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, the #MeToo movement beginning in 2017, and latterly the backlash against gendered discrimination and abuse in parliament house – gave it further acuity in the following years.

A decade after its muted reception in Canberra, the speech is circulated on TikTok, featured in stage productions, and in 2020 it was even voted Australia’s most “unforgettable” television moment.

Though not always enamoured with the way it dominated her political legacy, Gillard ultimately leaned in to it, as the saying goes. She started a podcast called A Podcast of One’s Own (a clear nod to Virginia Woolf), published two books about women and leadership, and established the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London, and latterly the Australian National University.

Star status

As prime minister, Gillard was regularly criticised for her “wooden” media appearances and her cautious approach to public engagement. It is ironic, then, that her transformation from untrustworthy politician to venerable feminist advocate depended on the media and celebrity industries.

It began with a series of ticketed public talks in venues such as the Sydney Opera House with longstanding feminist advocate, author and historian Anne Summers. Gillard’s memoir, My Story, and a high-profile book tour followed in 2014.

In her advocacy work as chair of the Global Partnership for Education she also rubbed shoulders with celebrities such as Rihanna.

The policy legacy

Several of the Rudd-Gillard government’s policy initiatives were unravelled by their successors. The $23-per-tonne carbon price was repealed by Tony Abbott’s government, as was the (clearly deficient) Minerals Resource Rent Tax. The National Broadband Network, the rollout of which began under Gillard, was dramatically reimagined by Malcolm Turnbull as communications minister and then as prime minister.

Some of the less-savoury aspects of Gillard policy legacy have been forgotten for more convenient reasons. Gillard herself has not often discussed her government’s revival of mandatory offshore processing for asylum seekers in Australia. The cutting of the single parents’ benefit, on the very same day as Gillard’s misogyny speech, has earned perhaps not enough discussion. It is her failure to support same-sex marriage as prime minister that now draws the most condemnation from pundits.

But policy legacies have also played a huge part in the revival of Gillard’s public standing. The Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings was a hugely important initiative. It earned Gillard significant credit across the political spectrum when its findings proved so damning.

The NDIS, largely overlooked in media coverage in favour of “carbon tax” and “deficit”, has become a sacred element in Australian social and welfare policy. The subsequent policy debate has not hinged on the design of the scheme, but rather how best to fund it.

Between nostalgia and amnesia

There is a dissonance in the way Australians talk about Gillard today. Her magnanimity is respected, her embrace of a life after politics admired. Above all else, Gillard’s status as Australia’s first woman prime minister and now a global women’s ambassador prevails. As a rule, she does not parade her views on contemporary politics before the public, except at a conceptual level. (Her memoir was perhaps the exception.)

But when commentators refer to the decade of egos, ambitions and failed leaders, they are increasingly likely to elide her name entirely. It is a disservice to the historical record, and to Gillard herself. She was a fierce combatant in parliament, and endured a period of intense conflict within the Labor Party. Her victory over Kevin Rudd in February 2012 – one of their many spills and shadow contests – was larger than any ballot that Rudd, Abbott or Turnbull ever contested.

People have been quick to wipe their hands clean of yesterday’s sexism in order to make Gillard yesterday’s heroine. But they ought to be careful that, in the process, they do not erase her from other political histories.

To segregate her story as one of women’s leadership while neglecting it in wider histories of Australian politics and policy would, in its own way, be an act of sexism.

The post Between nostalgia and amnesia: The legacy of Julia Gillard as PM, 10 years after her ousting appeared first on Women's Agenda.

“It’s pretty hard to offend me personally in an interview, but there’s a pretty cooked and misogynistic question I keep being asked about my role as host of #FboyIslandAu both privately and in press and I just want to address it once. I can’t believe I even have to do this, but it keeps coming up,” Chatfield wrote in a post on Instagram.

“That question is ‘Were you keen on/did you want to f**k any of the contestants?’ ‘Were you tempted?’ ‘Did you use the show as your own way to meet guys?’

“The answer, clearly, is ‘No.’ As the host of a reality TV format, I would presume that is obvious. It is my job to host the show. No part of me enters that arena expecting a romantic connection.”

In case you haven’t heard, FBoy Island follows three women who are looking for love among a group of 24 men who are invited to an island. Half of these men are self-proclaimed “nice guys” looking for a relationship, and the other half are self proclaimed “FBoys” who are only there for the $150,000 prize money. 

The show is expertly handled and hosted by Chatfield, who brings her signature charisma and wit to the role of host, making light of the show’s format in a way that begs you to keep watching.

“I am there to work, to control what is happening on set, and to gain the trust of the contestants and try to make them comfortable, as I have been a contestant myself. Potential love interests isn’t even a thought that crosses my mind for a moment,” Chatfield said.

“To be clear: I am not “resisting” a feeling, it does not exist. I am the host and I hold myself to level of professionalism that, IMO, is very basic: don’t try to/want to f**k contestants??”

Chatfield also said there was a clear power imbalance between herself and the contestants on the show, and to suggest she would pursue any of them romantically is an insult to her professionalism as a host, and the hard work she has put in throughout her career.

As Chatfield rightly pointed out, Osher Günsberg, the host of the Bachelor and the Bachelorette, has never been asked if he is romantically interested in the contestants on the shows he hosts. Why should it be different for Chatfield? 

“I’m a young woman who speaks openly about sex,” Chatfield said. “That doesn’t mean I’m some sort of fiend always on the lookout for my next f**k, regardless of where it comes from. I’m a professional, despite my age and gender.”

“I’ve never heard any other host be asked this question. Osher is never asked if he’s been “tempted” by contestants even before he was married. Even typing that sentence feels absurd.

“So, I’m making it clear now. I was not, and will never be so unprofessional to have even an iota of a thought that contestants on a dating show are anything close to a romantic interest. Please. Stop. Asking.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ABBIE CHATFIELD (@abbiechatfield)

On her Instagram post, Chatfield was supported by Masterchef host Melissa Leong, who said: “It’s ridiculous that you have to spell it out like that. Being open and articulate about sexuality and being a professional are two separate concepts, end of conversation.”

Meanwhile, Mel Schilling, an expert on Married At First Sight, said: “Bravo Abbie I’ve been asked this absurd question before too and your response here is perfect. We are professionals who happen to work in the ‘dating industry’ which doesn’t mean we participate in the dating. Well said.”

The post The ‘misogynistic question’ Abbie Chatfield is constantly asked as host of FBoy Island appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The 36-year old British-US citizen is most famously known for being kicked off of prominent social media platforms for his hate speech, though he remains 4.6 million followers-strong on Twitter. 

Let’s take a look at why he was detained and what he faces in the near future. 

The December 2022 arrest

In late December, Tate and his brother, Tristan were detained and charged with human trafficking and forming an organised crime group.

DIICOT, a Romanian anti-organised-crime unit, accused the suspects of recruiting and sexually abusing a number of women as early as 2021, subjecting them to “acts of physical violence and mental coercion.”

Romanian prosecutors released a statement claiming they had identified six people who were coerced into taking part in pornography for distribution on social media, with one of the victims claiming she was raped twice earlier in the year.

DIICOT received the green light from a judge to detain the brothers (plus two female suspects) for 30 days. While they were detained, the quartet appealed the decision, though it was rejected by the judge on January 10. 

If convicted on charges of human trafficking, Tate can face up to 10 years in prison. 

A spokesperson told reporters at this time, “Andrew and Tristan Tate have the utmost respect for the Romanian authorities and will always assist and help in any way they can,” while Andrew’s talent agent said in an email which was cited by The Washington Post that the allegations of human trafficking were “an orchestrated hoax put on by the matrix.” 

In mid-January, their pre-trial police detention was extended to February 27, with the judge claiming in a statement he wished to safeguard the investigation and ensure “the suspects’ presence at any future trial”, due to Tate’s “particular dangerousness” and “capacity and effort to exercise permanent psychological control over the victims… including by resorting to constant acts of violence”.

A few days later, during an interview with Romania’s organised crime unit, Tate said the case was “empty” and that “they know we have done nothing wrong”.

The Tates then launched yet another appeal against the judge’s January 20 decision. 

What does he face now?

In the last 24 hours, a Romanian court has upheld the 30-day detention, rejecting this second appeal — meaning Tate will remain in custody until February 27.

“It’s no secret that the Tate brothers are controversial public personas, but this is not about their public persona,” the Tates’ lawyer, Tina Glandian said. ”This is about the violation of international human rights and the due process of law.”

“The defence team made extensive legal arguments pointing out the lack of evidence against the Tate brothers.”

“So far the system has failed. The Tate brothers, who are both US citizens, have been in jail for over 30 days now without bail and without any charges filed against them.”

Tate told reporters last week, “Ask them for evidence and they will give you none, because it doesn’t exist. You’ll find out the truth of this case soon.”

On Sunday, a post on his Twitter account read: “My case is not criminal, it’s political. It’s not about justice or fairness. It’s about attacking my influence on the world.”

Why did he go to Romania?

Tate relocated to Romania in 2017, claiming in a now deleted YouTube video that “forty percent” of the reason he moved to the country was because he believed sexual assault cases are less likely to be investigated there.

“I’m not a f***ing rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free,” he said.

“If you’re a man living in England or Germany or America or any of the Western world right now you’ve decided to live in a country where any woman … at any point in the future can destroy your life.”

Online Petition

In January, an online petition was launched to “Free Andrew and Tristan Tate from unjust imprisonment”.

The petition, which has so far garnered almost 100,000 signatures, states “the judiciary, prosecutor and Diicot have acted unfairly in their detention of the Tate brothers”.

“The world is watching and there is little confidence in the Romanian judicial system based on these events, and indeed due to their history and reputation of widespread corruption,” the petition claims.

“The UK and US should ensure their nationals are subject to the highest level of legal rights.”

The post What does the future hold for Andrew Tate? appeared first on Women's Agenda.

The 64-year old screen legend opened up in a candid interview with Variety, describing the unpleasant experiences she has had working with some pretty awful men. 

“I’ve worked with some of the biggest stars in the business, who will literally talk through my close-up, telling me what they think I should do,” she said. “They’re so misogynistic.” 

“They just will not listen to me and will not allow me to affect their performance with my performance. That’s not great acting.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sharon Stone (@sharonstone)

“I get that you’re great and everybody thinks you’re wonderful. But listening, being present for those fractured moments, is really the human experience.”

Stone has starred in Hollywood’s most icon films, including Basic Instinct opposite Michael Douglas, Total Recall opposite Arnold Schwarzenegger, Cold Creek Manor opposite Dennis Quaid and Casino, opposite Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

Naturally, suspicions rose about exactly which male co-star she may be referring to — but Stone was quick to eliminate two stars from the pool of potentials. 

“Now, that is not Robert De Niro,” she said. “That is not Joe Pesci, that is not those guys.” 

Stone has previously spoken out against the gender pay gap in Hollywood. Last December, she posted a clip from Casino on her Instagram story noting a costume she wore, with the caption: “Just in case I die one day and my kids notice I never got equal pay and want to auction them.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sharon Stone (@sharonstone)

Last week, Stone joined musician Sam Smith on Saturday Night Live, sprawled in a glittering gold and black gown (designed by Indian couturier, Gaurav Gupta) as Smith performed a track from their upcoming album, Gloria. 

Journalist Jem Aswad described the musical number of both artists in detail: 

“When Smith begins singing…[Stone] sits up, transfixed by something in the distance, her expression a combination of awe, fear, sadness and a kind of rapture. As the song ends, she turns her head toward the audience, tears welling in her eyes, a grim finality settling over her face. It’s a remarkably subtle and enigmatic performance for such a dramatic song, and not necessarily one to be expected from her past films.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sharon Stone (@sharonstone)

Commenting on their SNL collaboration, Stone revealed:

“Sam did not ask for anything from me — just asked me if I would do it and trusted me. We just innately understand each other, at an almost intimate level. We have no judgment of each other; we have only affirmative feelings about each other as an artist. It’s not a competitive sport, but we want each other to bring our best game, and in order to do that, it’s like, “Just go for it, girl.”

Read Stone’s entire interview with Variety here. 

The post Sharon Stone opens up about the scale of misogyny in Hollywood appeared first on Women's Agenda.

Jacinda Ardern resigns: can women really have it all?’ it read, reducing a highly effective and much-beloved leader who steered her country through multiple national tragedies and a pandemic into a trope, a cliche, even a warning – the woman who tried to be bigger than she had any right to be.

I can’t count the number of times I have been warned not to try and have ‘it all’, and I suspect many women have this experience, regardless of their socioeconomic status or social class, education, race, or even aspiration. Despite the years and the variety of people who have said this to me, I am still trying to work out what ‘it all’ even is.

As far as I can tell, it generally seems to reflect the clash between a woman’s societally constructed obligation to have children and primarily identify as a mother, and her seeking an identity – any identity- apart from that.

The ideology is easy to enforce when a woman already has children – any hobby, interest or career aspiration necessarily takes time away from those children and limits participation, and so women can be warned that either or both of their family and other commitment will suffer.

Where women do not have children, the sorrowful observation that a barren uterus (and thus life) is the natural consequence of not prioritising procreation above all else becomes a strident warning when directed at older women beyond what the observer considers a fertile age – do not be like her, they say to others.

Never mind that Ardern navigated that tightrope of conflicting obligations in a way that should stand as inspiration to all leaders, regardless of their gender. Never mind that women, almost universally, invest so much to planning how to navigate balances between family and external life, and if they fail, it is often due to external factors rather than lack of attention or care. Never mind that Ardern is hardly the first politician to resign from an arduous public life, whether it be for family reasons or others. Never mind that a gracious resignation towards the peak of their tenure is an admirable and desirable trait in any leader.

All this said, I think it is important to acknowledge that the days have limited hours and it can be difficult for anyone to have and achieve everything they aspire to, especially at the same time.

But today, as always, my conversations about ‘having it all’ will not be with the younger women I mentor, but rather with men. Because I know that women, even those naively aspirational teenage women in my life, have considered the balances, the trade offs, the realities of what their lives might look like, regardless of whether those plans and aspirations involve child rearing or not. So it is to the men I say: how will you balance all your obligations? Oh, you’re rarely thought about this? Come, sit down, let’s talk about it.

I only wish the BBC would do the same.

The post The BBC’s awful ‘have it all’ headline about Jacinda Ardern’s resignation calls for a conversation appeared first on Women's Agenda.